Category Archives: Government

The Core Concept Behind the Assault on Your Freedom

The following is a guest submission from J. Roberts about one of the lesser discussed beliefs held by those of “higher” learning.

The Core Concept Behind the Assault on Your Freedom

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

-        Club of Rome, 1993

In 1894, the Times of London estimated that in under 60 years, every street in the city would be buried nine feet deep in horse manure. Similarly, a New York prognosticator in the 1890s predicted by 1930 the citizens of that not-so-fair city would see that selfsame horse excrement rise three stories high if nothing were done. Neither the Times nor the New York diviners had computer models, but undoubtedly, if they had, given their underlying assumptions, the conclusion would have been the same. Garbage in, garbage out, as the programmers say.

Linear predictions such as the above were first formalized by the Rev. Thomas Malthus (1776–1834) who noted that population is not always immediately limited by food and energy, writing in his 1798 An Essay on the Principle of Population, that “The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man” and “That the superior power of population is repressed, and the actual population kept equal to the means of subsistence, by (the mechanisms of) misery and vice.” Malthus’ writings need much more nuance for the scholar reading this, of course, but in short, the crux of the issue was the well-known quote that human population increases geometrically, while food supply is only able to increase arithmetically. Thus, if population is left unchecked, misery, starvation and death will result. And in large part, much of what you see today in the socio-political realm, is built around this one basic presupposition. To illustrate the point, bear with me as I cite a large number of well-known leaders and groups who parrot the exact philosophy of Malthus, only in more modern garb. Scan or skip the quotes as you need, but my purpose in providing the quantity of citations is to illustrate just how well entrenched this philosophy is throughout our culture.

“The present vast overpopulation, now far beyond the world carrying capacity, cannot be answered by future reductions in the birth rate due to contraception, sterilization and abortion, but must be met in the present by the reduction of numbers presently existing. This must be done by whatever means necessary.” Initiative for the United Nations ECO-92 Earth Charter (of course the authors of this are excepted, presumably)

A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. Treating only the symptoms of cancer may make the victim more comfortable at first, but eventually he dies—often horribly. A similar fate awaits a world with a population explosion if only the symptoms are treated. We must shift our efforts from treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions. The pain may be intense. But the disease is so far advanced that only with radical surgery does the patient have a chance of survival. Stanford Professor Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb. Ehrlich is a former 1970s global cooling fanatic, which demanded development and population restrictions, who a few decades later converted to global warming fanatic, which also requires population restrictions. Ehrlich predicted the world would come to a catastrophic denouement from global cooling in the 1970s – but of course he has now converted the mechanism for our destruction to global warming. Whatever fits the narrative.

“We have to take away from humans in the long run their reproductive autonomy as the only way to guarantee the advancement of mankind.” Francis Crick, discoverer of the double-helix structure of DNA

“One America burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say in order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.” Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier (Jacques, of course, with all his globe-trotting, was equivalent a zillion Bangladeshes –though only half as bad as Obama’s regular vacations – but as Orwell warned us, in the socialist paradise, some of us will be “more equal” than the others.)

“A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.” United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

- “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline would be ideal.” Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major United Nations contributor. (Ted…. are you volunteering to “check out” first?)

- Noted professor Eric Pianka declared that the Earth would be better off if nine out of 10 people were to die. “The Earth’s population is growing,” said Eric Pianka of the University of Texas, who was named the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist by the Texas Academy of Science. “We will see a point when we reach the carrying capacity – there aren’t enough resources.” Pianka believes the planet’s current population of 6.5 billion is much too high, and 700 million would be the ideal number. He says people are turning the Earth into “fat, human biomass” and leaving the planet “parched,” as the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons quoted him as saying. According to Pianka, the most likely instrument for killing 90 percent of the Earth’s human population is the Ebola virus, after it evolves the capacity for airborne transmission: “War and famine would not do. Instead, disease offered the most efficient and fastest way to kill the billions that must soon die if the population crisis is to be solved. AIDS is not an efficient killer because it is too slow. My favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world’s population is airborne Ebola (Ebola Reston), because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years. We’ve got airborne diseases with 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that. You know, the bird flu’s good, too. For everyone who survives, he will have to bury nine.” As with Mr. Turner, there are no reports that Dr. Pianka is volunteering to help out the situation by going first.

- Finnish writer Pentti Linkola is the classic uber-greenie, who wants to reduce Earth’s population to 500 million and abandon modern technology (presumably he is getting his message out via smoke signals) who wrote: “What to do, when a ship carrying a hundred passengers suddenly capsizes and there is only one lifeboat? When the lifeboat is full, those who hate life will try to load it with more people and sink the lot. Those who love and respect life will take the ship’s axe and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides.” And of course, America is the core of the problem: “The United States symbolises the worst ideologies in the world: growth and freedom” Adds Linkola, and “Any dictatorship would be better than modern democracy. There cannot be so incompetent a dictator that he would show more stupidity than a majority of the people. The best dictatorship would be one where lots of heads would roll and where government would prevent any economic growth. We will have to learn from the history of revolutionary movements — the national socialists (Nazis), the Finnish Stalinists, from the many stages of the Russian revolution, from the methods of the Red Brigades — and forget our narcissistic selves.” Linkola has also publicly called for climate change deniers be “re-educated” in eco-gulags and that the vast majority of humans be killed, with the rest enslaved and controlled by a green police state, with people forcibly sterilized, cars confiscated and travel restricted to members of the elite (what? You expected the leftist elite to eat their own cooking?) No word from Linkola as to who will control the controllers, of course. A fellow Finnish environmentalist writer, Martin Kreiggeist, hails Linkola’s call for eco-gulags and oppression as “a solution,” calling for people to “take up the axes” in pursuit of killing off the third world. Kreiggeist wants fellow eco-fascists to “act on” Linkola’s call for mass murder in order to solve overpopulation. Linkola and Kreiggeist come from a long line of those that would just that! The Black Book of Communism, by Courtois, et al, says various flavor of the left murdered 100 million last century, while Dr. RJ Rummel, Univ. of Hawaii, puts the number as high as 160 million (the vast majority murdered by the left). See his web site, or take the time to review his magnum opus, Death by Government, which provides details on how he came up with his numbers.

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Leader of the World Wildlife Fund

“Malthus has been vindicated; reality is finally catching up with Malthus. The Third World is overpopulated, it’s an economic mess, and there’s no way they could get out of it with this fast-growing population. Our philosophy is: back to the village.” Dr. Arne Schiotz, World Wildlife Fund Director of Conservation.

“There is a single theme behind all our work–we must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it….” and “Our program in El Salvador didn’t work. The infrastructure was not there to support it. There were just too goddamned many people…. To really reduce population, quickly, you have to pull all the males into the fighting and you have to kill significant numbers of fertile age females….” The quickest way to reduce population is through famine, like in Africa, or through disease like the Black Death….” Thomas Ferguson, State Department Office of Population Affairs. “Too many goddamed people.” I think that expresses your sentiments perfectly, Mr. Ferguson. (“Godammed people” pretty much sums up the whole issue, but again, Mr. Ferguson probably doesn’t consider himself “people” – he is undoubtedly special.)

- “Depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy towards the third world, because the US economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries”. Dr. Henry Kissinger. Kissinger also noted “The world’s population needs to be reduced by 50%,” and “The elderly are useless eaters” Kissinger is 91 – but no word yet if he plans to “check out” early. Y’know… just to do his part and all.

“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Nope, no word from the leftist media on this racist comment. And never will be, either.

“The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.” Obama’s science czar John P. Holdren, cited from Ecoscience. Holdren is a current global warmer cult leader – while in the 1970s, he joined Ehrlich as a fanatic global cooling alarmist. Any mechanism to control the population, you know!

“It is easier to kill a million people rather than trying to control a million people… people are fighting back…our capacity to impose control over humanity is at an historical low…” Zbignew Brzezinsi

- As just one final example of hundreds of quotes I could have included, the Club of Rome in 1993 stated in their The First Global Revolution, that “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is mankind.” Came up with the idea”… as opposed to “the facts led us to the conclusion.”

The fact of the matter is, as Robert Zubrin observed, to today’s Malthusians, “… each new life is unwelcome, each unregulated thought or act is menace, every person is fundamentally the enemy of every other person, and each race or nation is the enemy of every other race or nation.” Yes, we are back to the disproved socialist assumption that life and economics are a zero sum game, but this assumption is not up for debate – at least among the powers that be (and for those of you who think of Thomas Kuhn’s famed book The Structure of Scientific Revolution, which deals with how intellectuals become victims of group think just as easily as your local “Yes we can” chanters, you are exactly right). And it is not just your life that is unwelcome, but your financial status as well, until you not-so-mercifully decide – or it is decided for you- to put off this mortal coil. The economic side of the matter is put most clearly by the World Wildlife Fund Living Plant Report of 2012, which Lewis Page summarizes in the May 16, 2012 edition of the Register that “economic growth should be abandoned, (and) citizens of the world’s wealthy nations should prepare for poverty.” Individual rights are verboten, of course, given the Malthusian threat to the earth. As Harvey Ruvin, Vice-chair of International Committee for Local Environment Initiatives (ICLEI), a group that wants to impose the green agenda on everyone has noted, “Individual rights must take a back seat to the collective.” Pol Pot, move over… but please do not concern yourself that Obama and his cronies might have their tee times or uber-luxe vacations impacted.

Perhaps the best known antecedent of the ideas quoted above comes from the National Socialist (Nazi) T4 euthanasia programme, run by Hitler’s doctor, Karl Brandt. As early as 1929 Hitler proposed 700,000 of the weakest Germans be “removed” per year. By Aug. 1939, every doctor and midwife was notified they must register all children born with genetic defects, retroactive to 1936. The doomed were to “give their lives for the greater cause.” Nazis used injections; then later – being the ever-efficient National Socialists they were – used carbon monoxide. They would then send a letter to the parents, telling them that their child was dead (hey, it depends on what the definition of “was” was, right?) from pneumonia, and already cremated.

As you know, those responsible for the T4 programme were condemned and punished at the Nuremburg Trials after World War II. Importantly, ignorance or “just following orders” was not an excuse during these court proceedings. Most interestingly, individuals like Kissinger were with the Allied army as they fought Germany during this time, and should have zero excuse. Yet today, the Nazi wannabes are back at. For example, Drs. Francesca Minerva and Alberto Giubilini just published an article in a respected, academic journal about “after birth abortion” (sic) in the Journal of Medical Ethics (source), while Dr. Peter Singer of Yale believes that children should be able to be killed up to two years old (yet all the while he refuses to euthanize his elderly mother, who is horribly incapacitated with Alzheimers). It is, as the philosopher/theologian Os Guinness once noted, that “while all philosophies are arguable; not all are livable.”

You are now aware of the impact of Malthusian philosophy on population and resources, and have a general idea of who and what is behind it – which is pretty much the bulk of Hollywood, academia, the lamestream media, Al Gore and his acolytes, Agenda 21 types, and your Hilary-esque political, social and economic betters. You may have also surmised, correctly, that this Malthusian presupposition is going to directly impact you, your health, your wealth, your family, and your now nasty, short and brutish life.

Here we come to the crux of this article. Is the Malthusian assumption actually valid? Or is it just one of those faux truisms accepted by a culture for generations, such as the thinking that Chinese girls’ feet should always be bound, or the Boston Red Sox could never win the World Series after they traded Babe Ruth to the Yankees. Has anyone actually conducted a real life, boots-on-the-ground examination of the Malthusian assumptions?

As a matter of fact, someone has. But before we go there, a few preliminaries. Were you aware that between 30 and 50 percent of all food produced globally, equivalent to two billion tons, is thrown away each year according to a recent report written by the UK-based Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IME), titled ‘Global Food; Waste Not, Want Not? The problem is not with production, it is with distribution. Might I suggest that before we ponder throwing away human lives, as per Dr. Pianka above, we start by making sure food isn’t thrown away? Similarly, were you aware that three times the current population of the world could fit in the state of Oklahoma, which has an area of 69,903 square miles? In this case, one square mile will accommodate 278,784 people if each person were allowed 100 square feet. At that rate the state of Oklahoma could accommodate a 19.49 billion people— almost three times the earth’s current population of 6.4 billion – with the entire acreage of the US left over to farm, hike, populate with office buildings, put solar panels on, etc. The highly quoted scientist, and author of The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming, Bjorn Lomborg, takes the issue of trash under the same microscope, noting that the entire waste produced by the United States in the 21st century could fit into a square 100 feet thick and 28 km along each side, or 0.009% of the total surface of the United States

Lomborg also considers pollution from different angles. He notes that air pollution in wealthy nations has steadily decreased in recent decades, and finds that air pollution levels are highly linked to economic development, with the less developed countries polluting most. Again, Lomborg argues that faster growth in emerging countries would help them reduce their air pollution levels, and suggests that devoting resources to reduce the levels of specific air pollutants would provide the greatest health benefits and save the largest number of lives (per amount of money spent), continuing an already decades-long improvement in air quality in most developed countries. Similarly concerning water pollution, Lomborg notes again that this is connected with economic progress – not bumping off people, as the ignorant Georgia Guidestones imply.

Some will erroneously conflate being profligate, ignorant, wasteful with those who disagree with the Malthusians. That is an utterly gross misunderstanding of the issue. The point is that human life brings with it not just resource consumption, but intelligence, which is the key point in the whole debate. Going back to the horse manure issue in London, human intelligence brought about the invention of the automobile, which solved the manure issue. If the mad doctor Pianka had been around then, perhaps Henry Ford would have been intentionally bumped off by the Spanish flu before he got his auto industry in gear. Ah, but the car has created problems the Malthusian will say. And of course, the simple rejoinder is that the next step to resolve the issues brought about by the car are under way. The catalytic converter has already solved a certain percentage of the smog problem, though obviously more needs to be done. In fact, that “more to be done” is already under way. The very day this article began to be composed, a new paper in Science, reported how University of Glasgow scientists have taken a major step forward in the production of hydrogen from water, using solar powered electrolysis to break the bonds between hydrogen and oxygen, the constituents of water. Dr. Dan Nocera of MIT has a similar new product, marketed by SunCatalytix, which he explains in a YouTube video. The issue is, the Univ. of Glasgow scientists and Dr. Nocera may never have come into existence were it for the Malthusians, and in fact, if the Malthusians had their way, horse poop might well actually be 9 feet high in London now – though of course, they presumably would have killed off much of the population to prevent the problem. The real problem is not the number of people, but rather the corruption of law, politics (yes, Harry Reid, we are looking at you!), distribution processes (which are most efficiently left to Adam Smith-style private initiative, not USSR-style central planning), the slowing of patent granting (of which I have personal experience), socialism-caused poverty, and more. The problem is not population, per se.

We now come to the piece de resistance about the Malthusian misunderstanding, which it is found in the famed Julian Simon/Paul Ehrlich wager – essentially a wager between whether Malthus was right, or if the ingenuity of man is more significant. Simon’s point was that “The most important benefit of population size and growth is the increase it brings to the stock of useful knowledge. Minds matter economically as much as, or more than, hands or mouths.” Simon bet the then catastrophic global coolers – who are now catastrophic global warmers – Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren in 1980 that the price of chromium, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten would go down, not up, by Sept. 29, 1990.  In fact, all five commodities – which Ehrlich selected – went down by the targeted date. In Oct. 1990, Ehrlich mailed Julian Simon a cheque for $576.07 to settle the wager.  No word if current unelected Obama science czar Holdren chipped in any dough or not. But – as the last refuge of scientific (or economic) scoundrels – of course they trot out the old “this time will be different,” and the Malthusians, in the form of Agenda 21ers, etc. still remain in their cult-like trance.  The Wikipedia summary of the Simon/Ehrlich wager can be seen here.

The key point of this paper, which the Malthusians who deign to run your life based on their faulty assumptions miss, is that scarcity is mitigated by human intelligence and creativity. Horse poop doesn’t grow up to the trees in downtown NY or London, without some brainiac coming up with a novel solution. I will admit, however that horse apples do, apparently, grow up to the trees and beyond in the halls of academia or some bought-and-paid-for politician in Washington or Brussels.

It is true, as Orwell once noted, that “There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.” Malthusianism is one that is at the top of the list.

The World’s Most Fearsome WMD

John Kerry: Global warming is “world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.”

Yes, Mr. Kerry (“our” Secretary of State) just said that last week. That means you, dear reader, exhaling CO2, are a “terrorist.” You had better keep an eye on that Agenda 21 drone hovering outside your window! And now, presumably even the most mindless “Yes we can” chanter now knows there has been ZERO global warming since 1998 (well, I can dream, can’t I?).

Maybe Kerry should go back to traveling on his wife’s private jet, called the “Flying Squirrel” (just google “Kerry Flying Squirrel” to get your own details), sailing his 76’, $7 million dollar yacht, the Isabel, which he docked in R.I. a few years back to save $500,000 in taxes rather than by docking in his home state of Taxachussets. At least he is less of a hypocrite than fellow leftist zillionaire John Travolta who owns FIVE airplanes, and has his own private airport…. but then, what else to do you expect from Hollywierd Learjet leftist?)

Image Credit: JustLuxe.com

Or perhaps Kerry could go back to one of his mansions. A few years ago (this may have changed now, as well as valuations) his digs included:

  • Boston: A five-story, 12-room Beacon Hill townhouse that serves as Kerry’s main residence. Assessed value: $6.9 million.
  • Nantucket, Mass.: A three-story, five-bedroom waterfront retreat on Brant Point. Assessed value: $9.18 million.
  • Washington, D.C.: A 23-room townhouse in Georgetown. Proposed 2005 assessment: $4.7 million.
  • Ketchum, Idaho: A ski getaway converted from a reassembled barn near Sun Valley. Assessed value: $4.916 million. Heinz Kerry owns two adjoining lots valued at $1.5 million and $1.8 million.
  • Fox Chapel, Pa.: A nine-room colonial on nearly 90 acres in suburban Pittsburgh. The property also includes a nine-room, carriage house. Assessed value: $3.7 million.

Make sure to check out the leftist website Snopes for additional details about the properties, where they try to justify it by saying that Kerry, himself, doesn’t really own all of them, as his prenup with his fellow zillionaire leftist wife means that he doesn’t legally own them (never mind the fact that these two leftist darlings have all this for, well… just two people!).

To consume as much electrical power as do the Kerry-Heinz mansions, the two largest of the five – in Pennsylvania and Idaho – are in cold climates and presumably need to be kept above 55F (and probably much more) for at least six months out of the year. With a combined estimated 110,000 square feet under roof, this takes as much energy as is required by a small American village of approximately 200 persons – for basically TWO people. Where is the radical leftist outrage at this wanton expenditure of the earth’s non-renewable resources for two people? Before he bought the Isabel, he tooled around Nantucket Sound in a 42 ft luxury powerboat he called the Scaramouche, of which the no-frills model starts at $695,000, which he reportedly bought factory fresh, for cash. But then, he NEEDS this massive amount of fuel to get our leftist darling from event to event in a manner in which he doesn’t have to mix with us poor, unwashed masses.

And in case you were wondering about Kerry’s recent trips he made to discuss global warming, Jim Geraghty of National Review Online helpfully pointed out that flying first class from Washington to Seoul to Beijing to Jakarta to Abu Dhabi and then back to Washington runs up roughly 12.16 metric tons of carbon dioxide, according to CarbonFootprint.com, which uses data from the EPA and Department of Energy. In comparison, the average American generates about 19 tons of carbon dioxide in a year. So in one week, just from flying from meeting to meeting, Kerry generated about two-thirds the carbon output of the average American in one year.

ON A PERSONAL NOTE: I am now convinced that “WE” must be the problem. Never mind that the polar ice is doing just fine. I would like to extend a special thank you to Jim for sending this information my way.

Warning! For Freedom Lovers Only…

The Ashbrook Center of Ashland University has recently published a collection of historical American documents that is titled, 50 Core American Documents: Required Reading for Students, Teachers, and Citizens. Some may ask, what does this have to do with prepping? Having this knowledge and understanding of our freedoms and how they were gained is the most important factor in making sure that we are prepared to take on those who wish to take these freedoms from us. You know, the people who believe that because one person gets hurt with an object, that no one should be able to own that object or anything that resembles it. Yeah…those people. These documents are available to view individually on the Ashbrook website, the print version can be purchased from Amazon, or it is available to download for free from iTunes. The list of included documents is as follows:

50 Core American Documents

  1. Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776)
  2. Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments (James Madison – June 20, 1785)
  3. Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (Thomas Jefferson – January 16, 1786)
  4. Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 (James Madison – 1787)
  5. Constitution of the United States (September 17, 1787)
  6. Brutus I (October 18, 1787)
  7. The Federalist No. 1 (Publius – October 27, 1787)
  8. Brutus II (October 27, 1787)
  9. The Federalist No. 10 (Publius – October 27, 1787)
  10. The Federalist No. 51 (Publius – February 6, 1788)
  11. Speech on Amendments to the Constitution (James Madison – June 8, 1789)
  12. Letter to the Hebrew Congregation at Newport (George Washington – August 18, 1790)
  13. Bill of Rights (December 15, 1791)
  14. “Property” (James Madison – March 29, 1792)
  15. Farewell Address (George Washington – September 19, 1796)
  16. First Inaugural Address (Thomas Jefferson – March 4, 1801)
  17. Marbury v. Madison (February 24, 1803)
  18. Letter to John Holmes (Thomas Jefferson – April 22, 1820)
  19. Monroe Doctrine (James Monroe – December 2, 1823)
  20. Letter to Henry Lee (Thomas Jefferson – May 8, 1825)
  21. Letter to Roger C. Weightman (Thomas Jefferson – June 24, 1826)
  22. Webster-Hayne Debates (Daniel Webster and Robert Y. Hayne – January 1830)
  23. Fort Hill Address (John C. Calhoun – July 26, 1831)
  24. Veto Message of the Bill of the Bank of the United States (Andrew Jackson – July 10, 1832)
  25. Proclamation Regarding Nullification (Andrew Jackson – December 10, 1832)
  26. Speech on the Oregon Bill (John C. Calhoun – June 27, 1848)
  27. “What to the Slave in the Fourth of July?” (Frederick Douglass – July 5, 1852)
  28. Speech on the Repeal of the Missouri Compromise (Abraham Lincoln – October 16, 1854)
  29. Dred Scott v. Sandford (March 6, 1857)
  30. Fragment on the Constitution and Union (Abraham Lincoln – January 1861)
  31. “Corner Stone” Speech (Alexander H. Stephens – March 21, 1861)
  32. Final Emancipation Proclamation (Abraham Lincoln – January 1, 1863)
  33. Gettysburg Address (Abraham Lincoln – November 19, 1863)
  34. Resolution Submitting the Thirteenth Amendment to the States (Abraham Lincoln – February 1, 1865)
  35. Second Inaugural Address (Abraham Lincoln – March 4, 1865)
  36. Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln (Frederick Douglass – April 14, 1876)
  37. Plessy v. Ferguson (May 18, 1896)
  38. Roosevelt Corollary to Monroe Doctrine (Theodore Roosevelt – December 6, 1904)
  39. New Nationalism Speech (Theodore Roosevelt – August 31, 1910)
  40. Progressive Party Platform of 1912 (August 7, 1912)
  41. “Fourteen Points” Message (Woodrow Wilson – January 8, 1918)
  42. Speech on the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (Calvin Coolidge – July 5, 1926)
  43. Commonwealth Club Address (Franklin D. Roosevelt – September 23, 1932)
  44. Speech on the Consequences of the Proposed New Deal (Herbert Hoover – October 31, 1932)
  45. 1944 State of the Union Address (Franklin D. Roosevelt – January 11, 1944)
  46. The Long Telegram (George Kennan – February 22, 1946)
  47. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka I and II (1954 and 1955)
  48. “I Have a Dream” Speech (Martin Luther King – August 28, 1963)
  49. “Great Society” Speech (Lyndon B. Johnson – May 22, 1964
  50. “A Time for Choosing” (Ronald Reagan – October 27, 1964)

 About 50 Core American Documents

The Ashbrook Center’s 50 Core American Documents is meant to introduce readers to America’s story as it has unfolded from the American Founding into the Twentieth Century. Many of the documents emphasize America’s uniqueness and contributions to the world, but they also present different views on some of the major issues and disputes in American history and government, especially on the meaning of liberty, the injustice of slavery, and the demands of progress. Taken as such, the documents reveal a kind of political dialogue to readers, an ongoing and profoundly consequential conversation about how Americans have agreed and often disagreed on the meaning of freedom and self-government. 50 Core American Documents invites teachers and citizens alike to join in this American political dialogue.

Wall Street Expert Recommends Prepping

It seems as though prepping, a practice often seen as strange and participated in only by conspiracy theorists, may not be all that crazy after all. In an article titled, Be prepared: Wall Street advisor recommends guns, ammo for protection in collapse published in yesterday’s Washington Examiner, a Forbes contributor and successful financial advisor, David John Marotta’s thoughts were highlighted from a blog post that he published outlining the importance of preparedness and some of his considerations. Stating concerns of a developing fiscal and social disaster, Marotta believes that it is important for Americans to prepare a “bug-out bag” or survival kit to sustain life for a minimum period of 72 hours. This is a way to not only survive a financial or natural disaster but to prevent fear due to being ill-equipped. His web series even includes a suggested list from Wikipedia on what should be included in a bug-out bag.

Firearms are the last item on the list, but they are on the list. There are some terrible people in this world. And you are safer when your trusted neighbors have firearms. ~David John Marotta

Marotta, who is the president of Marotta Wealth Management, made these remarks in a series of articles published on his company’s website that revolve around the idea of preparing for the end of the world as we know it (TEOTWAWKI). In the five installment collection about how to prepare for the coming financial collapse, Marotta covers the following subjects:

  1. Is A Financial Apocalypse Coming?
  2. Should I Get Out Of Debt Before Civilization Collapses?
  3. Is It The End Of The Line For Stock Investments?
  4. If It’s TEOTWAWKI, Should I Have Paid Off My Mortgage?
  5. Should I Be Storing Food, Water and Firearms?

Citing concern over the implementation of ObamaCare, massive national debt, the NSA spygate scandal, currency deflation and rising Socialism in the United States, Marotta shares that he doesn’t see an end of the world type scenario playing out but does agree that the need to be prepared for potential disaster is real and warranted. It is clear to me that the idea of being prepared for a basic spectrum of disasters is not only an intelligent practice, but one that is being widely embraced by a large variety of people in society. My question to you is…If a well known financial advisor and Forbes contributor is suggesting to be prepared for a financial or other disaster, is there any reason that EVERYONE should not be practicing basic preparedness?

What do you think???

As We Engage In The Fight For Freedom

The following is an open letter that I received from a reader regarding the current struggle that we are experiencing for our freedom and individual liberty and what history has to teach us…

“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”       ~Winston Churchill

As we engage in the fight for freedom, we repeatedly find ourselves horribly handicapped by seemingly overwhelming problems – we are often massively outspent by grotesquely rich and well-connected Learjet leftists and limousine liberals; the left – given that power, not truth, is paramount, is able to lie with impunity, while we have no such freedom to do so; the “Bombs-Away Billy” Ayers types and their “long march through the institutions” – the most recent incarnation of which is seeing the military being co-opted by multiple generals being fired, possibly for refusing to fire on their fellow American citizens, as well as the placing practicing homosexuals in foxholes – continues apace; Hollywood, the “lamestream media,” and the co-opted education complex all have, as Churchill said about a lie, run around the world before truth could even get her boots on.

Frankly, what hope do we realistically have? Is it true that our hopes are slim to none – and Slim has just left town?

Actually, there is hope. Looking at history, we see an Invisible Hand time and again. Where exactly did that mysterious fog come from when Washington crossed the Delaware to avert utter disaster? Why did the dive bombers at the Battle of Midway make the “chance” turn they did for just one more look before their fuel ran out? Was it just an accident that Reagan didn’t have a major artery severed when he was shot? Unless you believe all is mere chance, we know that history generally has a way of eventually - long or short - resolving the perfidy, arrogance and lies of the Saul Alinsky types that have roamed the world over the centuries. No, it’s not a slam-dunk given – sometimes evil has had a very, very long run. Islam and the USSR are but two examples. But where there are willing, courageous people who pair that with faith in the Unseen Mover, many things have happened in history the bear engender hop. Here are two for your consideration, where faith (in God, freedom or justice) paired with courage resulted in almost unbelievable historical events:

The British aeroplane, the Fairey Swordfish, introduced in 1936, was almost obsolete before its maiden flight touched down. As a matter of fact, by the end of WWII, the German Me262 – along with a few other airplanes – featured jet propulsion… not the Snoopy-like biplane wings reminiscent of WWI airplanes found on the Swordfish. Nor was it well armed. Militaryfactory.com notes that, “The standard armament of the Swordfish was something more akin to the fighters of World War I than the Second World War.” Top speed was 138 MPH – a speed perhaps one or two readers may have come close to in their automobiles (though I admit nothing!) at one time or another – as opposed to the Me262 top speed of 541 MPH, or propeller driven Mustang P-51 top speed of 437 MPH. The more common German opponent, the Me109G, had a maximum speed of close to 400 MPH, dependent upon the model. Long story short, the Swordfish was like putting your grandmother in the ring with Mike Tyson.

Arrayed against the Swordfish during one critical battle of WWII was the most modern warship of its time, the Bismarck, brought to life by the same vaunted German engineering the world still respects today.  And the ship was not just modern – it was absolutely bristling with every kind of impenetrable defense armament imaginable, against any kind of attack conceivable. Impenetrable? Arranged with defenses to repel any attack? Does this remind you, perhaps, of a similar political situation today? It sure does me.

In a feat of daring, the Bismarck got out into the open Atlantic after the Battle of Denmark Strait, sinking one major British warship and damaging another. With its unmatched armament, firepower and speed, the whole course of history was about to be changed by Hitler’s National Socialists by shutting down the lifeblood of the war, the convoys, which brought every necessity needed by the Allies to survive.

Enter the tiny, under-powered, under-armed biplane, the Swordfish, armed with a single torpedo. Launched in a seeming suicide mission against the Bismarck (in a previous attack, the aviators had mistakenly attacked one of their own ships!), they struck desperately – and with what seemed to be in failure (only one torpedo hit a heavily armored section, with virtually no damage resulting). Except for one other thing: another torpedo scored a – shall we say – “lucky” hit, striking at the very far stern, hitting the port rudder shaft. In fact, the torpedo came an eyelash from missing completely. But it did hit, and by happenstance – or Providence – the Bismarck’s rudder was damaged and  now locked into a 12 degree turn to port, turning it from indomitable – and having survived numerous previous encounters – to almost defenseless. The end, as you know, was not long in coming after that, and the Bismarck – along with its threat to change the war – was no more.

The Swordfish aviators had no way of knowing if they would be successful when they launched; they had no way of knowing whether they would be shark chum in the water in few hours or not. But launch they did, and now we consider them heroes.  The application to you, dear reader, need not be spelled out – except that our literary (make no mistake – our battle today is one of the pen, the microphone and the blog, not the sword) Fairey Swordfishes are fighting the supposedly indomitable battleships found in today’s leftist journalism, politically correct educational systems, an utterly corrupt and decadent entertainment complex, and worse.

A similar story during the same war occurred in the Pacific, while the US lay prostrate after Pearl Harbor, when all was seemingly lost. You may know the name of the battle, Midway, but perhaps not the fine print of what happened. Long story short, slow, underpowered torpedo bombers were again used against a superior Japanese force, resulting in one attack where all fifteen TBD Devastators of flight VT-8 were shot down without being able to inflict any damage, flight VT-6 losing 10 of their 14 Devastators, and 10 of Yorktown’s VT-3′s 12 Devastators shot down with no hits to show for their effort. Imagine yourself at that moment: almost all of your attacking aircraft have been lost, with your country’s back already against the wall. You have just watched almost all your friends die in a courageous, but utterly futile attack.

But just one second. Unknown to you, as a flyer in one of the ill-fated attacking torpedo bombers (assuming you were one of the few that lived), in order to shoot down these lumbering American albatrosses, Japanese fighters had to come down to low altitude to shoot them down. Thus, no Japanese fighters were “up top,” watching for enemy aircraft. And there might not have been any American aircraft “up top” if it weren’t for two plucky American dive bomber squadrons – who just happened to be critically low on fuel because of the time spent looking for the enemy, but decided to push a little longer, and a little harder. In fact, squadron commander C. Wade McClusky, Jr., putting his life at risk, decided to continue his search just that little bit little longer, and by good fortune – or Providence-  spotted the wake of the Japanese destroyer Arashi, steaming at full speed to rejoin the Japanese fleet after attacking a US submarine. This “happenstance” led the dive bombers directly to the Japanese fleet, which was now bereft of fighter cover at high altitude after engaging – and wiping out – the American torpedo bombers. And those few Japanese planes able to try to mount an attack were low on fuel and ammunition. Happenstance? Providence conjoined with courage? I ask you this: Why was there no fog to cover the Arashi as there was with George Washington?

Perhaps you, as a blogger, feel very akin to those torpedo bombers. You may well be the modern day equivalent, doing a thankless task that has seen little to no success. Yet, may it be your courage, your perseverance, your integrity that could well be opening the path for others? You, like the torpedo bombers who went to their deaths, may never know. But that doesn’t mean your effort is meaningless or insignificant. In fact, it may very well be your sacrificial work that opens the door for someone else. Or, it may be you, yourself, that finds success when you have only 10 minutes of emotional (or financial) fuel left. You may never know, but we do know from these stories about how courage combined with Providence won the day against insurmountable odds. Can we do any less, during a similar time of despair?

There is a third, fictional story that might encourage you, if you are a person of faith, as I am. CS Lewis’ third book his magnificent space trilogy, That Hideous Strength, foresaw a day much like ours now, in which, as Churchill warned while fighting the fascism of that day “But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.” Does fascism (the merger of the socialist state and big crony corporation) aided by perverted science ring a bell for anyone? In Lewis’ dystopic vision of the future, he imagines one of the leading ministries, N.I.C.E – National Institute for Co-ordinated Experiments, created for the betterment of mankind - leading the charge into state backed utter evil and darkness. (And in a fitting irony, the unsuspecting bureaucrats in England actually obliged us by creating a real, live government department actually called N.I.C.E – National Inst. for Health and Care Excellence. Not that anyone in the British government was aware of this!) In Lewis’ novel, evil progress rapidly across this future “unEngland” – perhaps as rapidly as it is progressing across the West today. But, in the book, the powers that be – by the very nature of who they were and what they were doing - also began to dabble in a science-cum-black-arts, engaging them – all in the name of a perverted science paired with  a lust for power – with entities called “macrobes.” Unknown to the elite of Lewis’ N.I.C.E, these “macrobes” were simply demons, shorn of their horns and red suits, all to make them more palatable to the sophisticated elite. Of course, these macrobes easily duped their urbane Agenda 21 literary alter egos, and led them down – as is always the case with demonic forces – paths ending in the destruction of both their programmes as well as their very selves. Devoured by their own flirtations with evil, the result was, as  Jacques Mallet du Pan wrote of yet another evil, socialist era, the French Revolution, “la revolution devore ses enfants” – the revolution always eats its own young.

All of the above is to say that we have hope. There is no honor among thieves, and very regularly throughout history, evil eventually turns inward and starts hacking at its own members. Yes, there are indeed times when evil has had a very, very long run. Think of peaceful Coptic Christians in Egypt who have faithfully suffered for a thousand years as dhimmis under Islam as but one example. But God is indeed active in history, or as Lewis put it in his Narnia Chronicles, “Aslan is about.” We don’t know how, or when – but we can be ready, and doing what we can to peacefully, creatively and courageously bring justice and light.

And if Aslan tarries? Then we remain faithful to the calling of faith and freedom. We may indeed perish in that battle against slavery Churchill noted above. But a few stories here, during which freedom hung by a thread, shed at least a glimmer of hope in the current situation we find ourselves.

How can you do a battle of wits with an unarmed person?

Thank You Taxpayers!

Fox news correspondent John Roberts recently spent some time with Californian Jason Greenslate to learn about the new reality of food stamp recipients, compliments of our President, Barack Hussein Obama. Check out this video and see if it doesn’t make your blood reaching its boiling point. This is America’s future if we do not interfere and demand accountability and change (notice I said accountability and change, not Hope and Change) from our government and our country’s leadership.

Please note that this food stamp recipient is driving a Cadillac Escalade EXT which carries a base price of $63,060 for this year’s model. I don’t know about all of you but I have always worked full time to provide for me and mine and have never owned a Cadillac. Not even one that was up on blocks in the yard!

 

Privacy, And Why It Matters

The following is a guest post from JV:

Assistant Dear Leader Nancy Pelosi has told us explicitly- “Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory.” And who better to inventory it, than the compassionate, caring, DMV-like state! And I just can’t wait until we have those Red Guard-like “self-criticism struggle sessions!” I’m sure that will fix things in a jiffy!

“If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know,” Google non-Einstein CEO Eric Schmidt said in 2009, “maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.” Really, Eric? How’s that prostate health of your’s going along? And tell us what you REALLY think of those Kate Upton pix on the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue. Y’know….what you really think.  Anything else about your health or, um….marital and/or sex life you care to let us all know about? If not, “maybe you shouldn’t be doing ‘it’ in the first place,” right?  BTW, care to tell us how you ran Novell into the ground, Mr. Schmidt? Full details, please! Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook founder, says the same thing as Herr Schmidt. Just curious though: Does Mr. Zuckerberg mind if the paparazzi join him in bed tonight? Would be great  to get some close up photos of him in his PJs clutching his fuzzy yellow teddy bear!  Does he close the door when in the washroom, or taking a shower? Care to give us the complete details of your latest spat with your significant other? Or is that others?  And DO tell us all about your early dating life, struggles with pimples, and how you felt when you didn’t make the football team when you were 15. Oh yes…can you provide your SSN, Visa card number and cell phone number while you are at it?

Photo Credit: RadioBigBoy.com

And why, exactly, are Obama’s records – like his medical or university ones – sealed? Can we start with this new Pelosi-esque open “inventory” of our lives with our Dear Leader? No? Why not?? And why did Lisa Jackson, EPA czar, feel a need for a fake email account, if Obama appointees are also so on board with this approach? Why is Kathleen Sibelius doing the same thing with her fake email account? Can we get the details on half of Obama’s cabinet that cheated on their taxes, while we are at it?

Of course, when the First Congress enacted the original Crimes Act in 1790, there were only 17 recognized Federal crimes, and it was reasonable to assume that as long as a person was a law-abiding citizen, he was not at risk of arrest. Today there are more than 4,500 Federal crimes and tens of thousands of Federal regulations – and this is JUST at the federal level I’m sure I must be guilty of at least a few of them, so perhaps Nancy Pelosi could just go ahead and sign me up for a few at random ones at one of the government levels (federal, state or municipal)? The Federal Register –comprised of government agencies’ new regulations, proposed rules, and presidential papers –  is, according toPolitifact.com and Rep. Randy Forbes (R—4th District of Virginia) 34,000 pages in length. The Government Printing Office stated on June 14, 2011, the actual number of pages was 34,844, but then, as pages are added every day, whose counting! But that was actually just the running tally of the number of pages published in 2011 to date. According to Jim Hemphill, Assistant to the Director of the Federal Register, the 2010 total was actually 81,405 pages, of which “only” 46, 758 were dedicated to rules or proposed rules (Whew! I was worried there for a minute!). The rest were agency hearings, meetings, investigations, etc.

As Tim Carney writes in the Washington Examiner, “Citizens that the federal government wants to indict, the federal government can indict if it monitors them closely enough. That’s why it’s so disturbing to learn that the federal government doesn’t need to obtain a warrant on us in order to get our emails and phone records…. One threat to privacy is Congress expanding the use of these Big Brother tools. Another threat is an administration using it illegally. This happens. President Bush used surveillance powers inappropriately. New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer targeted political opponents with state surveillance. So what’s next? A president targeting hard-core environmentalists or pro-life activists on the suspicion they’ll carry out terrorist attacks? This may not sound likely, but recall scare stories about “ecoterrorists,” and how Obama’s Department of Homeland Security has warned that Tea Partiers are serious threats.You don’t need a new Nixon for this to become reality. You just need a president convinced that his political opponents are not only incorrect, but positively dangerous.”  We know the “Yes we can” chanters aren’t on board with this, so what about Bush? Or Nixon? As the Verizon commercial might say to these leftists, “Can you hear me now?!!!”

But the very best response to the utterly absurd contentions of Komrades Schmidt and Zuckerberg – and all their ilk – is found at lawyer Harvey Silverglate’s, Three Felonies a Day website. The website has exactly what you think it does: a rendering of how you, dear average citizen, are literally guilty of three felonies a day. Yes, you!

I did not retain the source for the information below, but let me cite this excerpt: “Legal experts such as retired Louisiana State University law professor John Baker say, “There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime… That is not an exaggeration.” It is because more than 4,500 federal laws exist. These laws crisscross 50 titles and roughly 27,000 pages of the U.S. Code. And to complicate matters, at least another 10,000 regulations from dozens of disparate federal offices and agencies carry severe and criminal punishments. Adding to this volatile mix is the established trend that government seeks to “criminalize nearly every aspect of our lives,” says The Heritage Foundation in its ‘You Could Go To Prison for Five Years By Making a Clerical Error’. Here’s how: “The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration (PHMSA), an agency within the Transportation Department, recently proposed a regulation that would make filing duplicate applications to transport fireworks a crime punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment.” In other words, if you’re overly cautious and submit more than one application, you could go to federal prison. And we’re not talking here about nuclear material, hazardous waste, or toxic chemicals. We’re talking about firecrackers and bottle rockets used by patriotic Americans to celebrate what’s left of our independence. The report continues: “Why such a severe punishment for merely filing a duplicate application?” To quote PHMSA, “The submission of duplicate applications under both processes may result in confusion, slower processing, and diminished safety.” Ah yes… that old “safety” thing again! Heck, we are so “safe” that 75% of us could be in jail – unless you have a good lawyer like Jon “I lost $1.6 billion” Corzine does, or are a special crony of the elite.

Traditionally, we have a separation between civil and criminal law. The reason is so punishments fit the crime. Also, for a crime to exist, there ought to be criminal intent. None of these factors fit the example above, because common sense and decency by central powers have been thrown out the window. In another example from the report, under current law, if you’re negligent and drop a banana peel on the floor, and a customer slips on it and gets injured, the customer has the right to sue for monetary damages. That’s fair. No one gets locked up in jail; it was just a mistake.But under The Clean Water Act, simple, unintentional accidents are crimes. You can get charged with a felony and sent to prison for three years because your employees accidentally installed the wrong water filter. This happened to Mr. James Hong [United States v. James Ming Hong]. If your employee drives heavy equipment and accidentally punctures a buried petroleum pipe, and the contents spill into a waterway, you’ll have a felony on your personal record for life, and also sit in prison for six months, just as it happened to Edward Hanousek, Jr. [Edward Hanousek v. United States].

Civil forfeiture (as opposed to criminal forfeiture) happens when law enforcement agencies “seize property upon the mere suspicion that it may have some connection to criminal activity,” says president and general counsel of the Institute for Justice, Chip Mellor. “Under civil forfeiture, police and prosecutors can seize your car or other property, sell it and use the proceeds to fund agency budgets–all without… charging you with a crime… with civil forfeiture, owners need not be charged with a crime… to lose homes, cars, cash or other property.”

This nightmare is happening now to Mr. Russ Caswell…

In United States v. 434 Main Street, Tewksbury, Massachusetts (The Motel Caswell), the Justice Department teamed up with the local police department to strip Caswell’s ownership of his motel. Notice the case title, United States v. 434 Main Street, Tewksbury, Massachusetts. The defendant is an actual street address, not a legal entity; the government is suing the property. Caswell and his family are NOT accused much less convicted of any crime. The government’s position: Over the last 20 years, this motel, which has been in the Caswell family for two generations, is the location where some lodgers have been arrested for crimes. (So, apparently that makes the cops entitled to the property.) It’s important to mention that throughout this time “the Caswells themselves have worked closely with law enforcement officials to prevent and report crime on their property,” says the Institute for Justice. The Caswells have been responsible and diligent owners. Their motel is worth at least $1 million and is owned free and clear, making it a juicy prize. For perspective, in 1986, the year after the U.S. Department of Justice’s Asset Forfeiture Fund was created it took in just $93.7 million. According its Annual Financial Statements for the year 2011, the fund increased to $2.85 BILLION in 2011, up from $2.58 BILLION in 2010, nearly an 11% increase in one year.

Does anyone still have questions on why this issue is important?

The Nature Of The Socialist Un-Vision:Guest Post

Thank you to contributor J.V. for submission of this guest post.

Socialism (literally, government) is the great fiction, whereby everybody endeavours to live off of everybody else. ~ Frederic Bastiat, 1801-1850

David Sirota recently penned an article about the Boston Marathon bombing, while the victims were still bleeding one day after the attack, titled Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American.

Of course, Sirota’s reason is simple – he did not want “slander” of Islam, or by extension, any other minorities.  Leaving aside the simple question of whether the Qu’ran is violent or not (I have read it twice, and indeed it is – and in fact was founded by violence), Sirota does have an initial valid point that we may perhaps all agree on: We desire all people to have basic human rights and dignity.  The question is, how do we get there?

Unfortunately the “logic” of Sirota, and others of his persuasion, breaks down in two areas. The first area is that leftists like Sirota – in their Robespierrian attempt to make everyone equal – have no problems running roughshod over other equally intrinsic rights that are also predicated on basic human rights and dignity, such as the right of free speech, or the right of self-defense, which includes the right to bear arms.

But that is not the concern of this article. Rather, the second, and key concern, of this article is the inhumanity, hypocrisy, hatred and Orwellian control that has historically and intrinsically been part and parcel of the very nature of left. Sirota’s article, written while people were still bleeding in pain, is consistent with the inhumanity of the left. And here is the key point: Is Sirota an aberration? Was this article just a “one-off?”  There are certainly people of all persuasions – left, right, center, anarchists, monarchists, etc. – where we can find those who have engaged in violence, so even if there were ten Sirota’s writing in Salon the next day, that would not prove leftists are suspect as a group. And I don’t wish to even hint at the typical Alinsky intellectual fraud of demonizing one person, and then extending that to a full group. It is intellectually bankrupt and – on a different plane – completely irrelevant. I will leave that kind of sophistry to the left. Besides, leftists are much better at it!  And, no, I am not being hypocritical here, for my very point is that the left, with few exceptions, always engages in this type of casuistry. That is why they require their campus speech police, a compliant, “lamestream” media, a well-oiled propaganda machine, and hordes of “Yes We Can!” chanters.   Rather, my belief is that as the conservative and libertarian views have an intrinsic, explanatory adequacy, we needn’t devolve into the leftist shenanigans of organizations like Moveon.org, etc. to win the day. Rather, people of good will and fair-mindedness will see the reasoning behind the conservative argument, just as even after decades of iron-fisted, propaganda filled Soviet rule, the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of socialism – the emperor with no clothes – could still be seen. Yes, it would be ideal if leftists would grant the same fairness to conservatives, but in my experience with the left, basic logic, evenhandedness and intellectual integrity such as this passes by their reasoning like “two sheep in the night” (pun intended).  I learned this lesson the hard way on one of the very first papers I wrote while an undergrad at university, where I was clearly marked down on a paper by a leftist professor who did not agree with a few minor observations made within the writing.

Picture Credit: SecretsOfTheFed.com

My concern is that the left, in general, is built around a philosophy that treats people as animals, has utilitarianism as its religion, and is at core one of the most blatantly hypocritical and violent movements to ever un-grace the face of the planet. The left is not so much concerned about justice as they are about their own conceit that they alone have the knowledge to control everyone and everything.  I recall a cartoon from decades ago, the author now lost to antiquity, which had one rich man stating to another “First I thought it was sex, then money… but now I know it is power.” And importantly, power without humanity equals tyranny.  This is exactly what is occurring today.

Where does our humanity – without which everything degrades into utilitarianism and depersonalized “citizens” (here I disparagingly use the term “citizens” as Robespierre did) - derive from? Ultimately, we are left with two choices: God or man. And if the latter, then those rights may also be taken away by the same entity that “granted” them.  The most successful country and culture in the history of man, the U.S., adhered to the former, of course. Thomas Jefferson stated that our rights were endowed by our Creator in our founding document. Other writers such as CS Lewis, in his short book The Abolition of Man, have noted that ethics ultimately have no basis without the absolutes from whence they derive. Or as the Russian philosopher Nicolai Berdyaev once put it, “If there is no God, man does not exist either.” But let me not even go down the “religious” path – Albert Camus, who was no Christian – alluded to the same idea, once stating that a finite point, without an infinite reference point, has no meaning.

So, where does the socialist un-vision lead us?  As writer and Fabian socialist G.B. Shaw once wrote, “You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught and employed, whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not the character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner.” And shouldn’t our dear leaders do as Shaw, suggests, for recall that in the left’s world, your rights are granted by the man created state, and can be revoked that same man created state.  Or, as Fyodor Dostoyevski stated, if there is no God, everything is permissible. And what is this “permissible?” This is simply answered, by taking a look at the track record of the left, which has been one consistent record of oppression, lack of compassion, murder and poverty. To wit:

Dr. Arthur Brooks of Syracuse University has written one of the most important books on the topic of leftist faux “compassion,” entitled Who Really Cares. This book is worthy of being a cornerstone in your personal library, with 200 pages of very heavily documented statistics noting, for example, that religious conservatives are more likely than leftists to give money away, volunteer for community concerns, and even give to secular charities. Most strikingly, if leftists gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply for critical, life-saving medical support would increase by 45% (see page 22 in Brooks’ book).

In another must-read book, Do As I Say, Not As I Do, by Peter Schweizer, he profiles the utter hypocrisy of liberal icons such as Nancy Pelosi, who owns - in addition to multiple other properties – a vineyard on Zinfandel Lane in St. Helena, CA, worth $25 million in 2005. What’s the big deal about this? Pelosi, who would like a national holiday commemorating United Farm Workers’ Cesar Chavez, will not let UFW union workers pick the grapes for the Pelosi vineyard’s $100 a bottle wine, says Schweizer. And it’s not that they don’t make a lot of dough off their vineyard – as of the book’s writing, financial disclosures showed $200k to $2 million profits on this vineyard alone in the preceding years. But, as we also see, e.g., with carbon billionaire Al Gore, profit trumps ethics and intellectual integrity.  Babs Streisand, another Hollywood Learjet leftist? Schweizer quotes Brad Meltzer worked for her for a year and half, and commented about her treatment of the working staff, stating that she was “… absolutely mean and niggardly about the salaries of the working people she hired,” and referring to some young illegal immigrants she hired for $3.50/hr to do menial work, when they asked for 25 cents/hr more for overtime work, Meltzer says “She told me to fire them and have them replaced. It killed me, but I did it.”  And let’s not forget other similar examples, such as Hilary Clinton with her miraculous cattle trades, Whitewater and her host of other get rich quick schemes.

Hatred from the left? Here is security camera footage from the homosexual gun attack on Family Research Council, where the perpetrator intended to kill dozens of innocent people, and then wipe Chik-Fil-A sandwiches all over them in a final insult to those he murdered.

I have personally witnessed similar physical threats of violence by homosexuals in a meeting of parents’ elementary school children, so this comes as no surprise to me.

Violence? PoliticalOutcast.com notes that John Wilkes Booth, a Democrat, shot and killed President Lincoln; Charles Guiteau, who was a member of the communist Oneida Community, shot and killed President Garfield; Leon Czolgosz, a leftist anarchist (similar to the useful idiots in the Occupy movement) killed President McKinley. Meanwhile, some other lefties who had failed assassination attempts (whose politics we know) include Severino Di Giovanni, a leftist anarchist, tried to bomb President-elect Hoover’s train, Giuseppe Zangara, a professed anti-capitalist, tried shooting President-elect Franklin Roosevelt; Oscar Collazo and Griselio Torresola, two Marxists, tried killing President Truman at the Blair House; Samuel Byck, who tried joining the leftist Black Panther group, attempted to kill President Nixon. As well, Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, member of the Manson Family and also a hippie environmentalist, shot at President Ford; Sara Jane Moore tried to kill Pres. Ford as well because, as she said, “the government had declared war on the Left”; Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez, a leftist connected to the Occupy movement, tried getting a one-in-a-billion shot at Obama by firing a gun at the White House.

As if the murder and terrors of Robespierre weren’t enough of a clue, the outcome of leftist philosophy reached its nadir a century later, starting in the USSR. When the Russians opened their archives after the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, they admitted that there were 61 – 62 million “excess deaths.” Dr. RJ Rummell of Univ. of Hawaii, in his book Death by Government, has painstakingly detailed that roughly 170 million people were murdered by their own governments in the last century, with about 99% of those deaths coming at the hands of socialist countries. Meanwhile Stephane Courtois, et al, in the highly regarded Black Book of Communism, stated the numbers murdered by the left were around 100 million. You say tomato, I say tomahto….but any way you slice the leftist killings (assuming knives are not yet banned), the left has murdered and oppressed more human beings than any other movement in the history of the world.

Interestingly, there is one key word in the paragraph above that needs special attention: the word “excess” used by the Russians. The significance of this is that even after many decades of socialist propaganda, dehumanization, oppression, there was still a conscience in people, as well as an innate recognition that what was done was simply evil. It almost as if they couldn’t bring themselves to us the word “murdered,” and needed some Cain and Abel type euphemism to attempt to hide the blood of their murdered brothers.  And therein lies some hope for us.

While the list could go on for dozens of pages about the hypocrisy and violence of the left, what is the real point of the above? Just to mud sling? Certainly, conservatives have their own failures, and a list could be made of that, too. I, myself, could also have a list made of my own failures and hypocrisies. But this objection proves the very point: All men and women are fallible, and truly absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Which is why the basis of the American Constitution, with its separation of powers, is utterly central, and why the erosion of Constitutional principles will lead to disaster, totalitarianism, and worse. Generally speaking the core of the conservative and libertarian views is that this very recognition of fallibility is built into their guiding principles, in a way that socialism denies theoretically, or practically.  It is also the reason why conservatives and libertarians will not be shut up, as the alternative is a fate worse than if Hitler took over the world… and why this post is written.

In conclusion, returning to the Russians – who know a thing or two about the abject failure of socialism – as one observed “The future kingdom of socialism will be a terrible tyranny of criminals and murderers. It will throw humanity into a true hell of spiritual suffering and poverty.” (Fyodor Dostoyevski). But, of course, the hypocrite elite, the Learjet leftists and limousine liberals, will still be living in splendor, and as Orwell warned us, while we will all be equal in this socialist dystopia, some of us will be “more equal” than the others. Just ask leftists George Clooney with his multiple megamansions (you can Google this for your own verification, and to see actual pictures), Sean Penn and his palatial digs, Mikey Moore with his NY penthouse and multi-million dollar mansion on Torch Lake, MI, Madonna, or a thousand other Hollyweird glitterati – when not even one of them will open up just one room in just one of their zillion square foot mansions. Just think of Obama supporter Tom Hanks, who in 2010 purchased a 14,500-square-foot mega mansion in Pacific Palisades for $26 million, which was  the largest transaction for a single-family home in Los Angeles County that year. Any tent people you know of bunking there?

In conclusion, even socialists sometimes have an inkling of the inherent insufficiency of socialism. Leftist French writer Andre Gide wrote, after visiting the socialist workers paradise of Stalin, that “I doubt that in any country of the world, even Hitler’s Germany, is thought less free, more bowed down, more terrorized,” while on the opposite side of the world, Chinese philosopher Lin Yutang wrote of socialism he saw in communist China that included “making 12 year old children subject to capital punishment, sending women to work in underground coal mines, harassing workers during their lunchtime with threats of prison – or worse – if they were late returning to work.”

Friends, we have our work cut out for us. That work is non-violent in nature. But we need to speak, communicate and educate. That is the path forward. The alternative is a fate worse than if Hitler had won.

What I Will Do When They Come To My Door – Guest Post

Last weeks manhunt in Boston for the suspected marathon bombers has America spinning. Freedom loving Americans are upset at the implementation of martial law while the liberal side of the United States (and ironically, those who still do not realize martial law was occurring) want to know why more wasn’t done. This creates the perfect environment to implement peaceful resistance and attempt to create accountability should the government try to oppress the citizens of the greatest nation on the earth again.

Thank you to our guest author for having the intestinal fortitude to put into words, what many of us are thinking.

What I Will Do When The Police State Arrives At My Door

Those of us who value the Constitution, as well as the inalienable freedom that is all of ours as a native birthright, have watched in horror as barely restrained paramilitary-style police squads, complete with light tanks, locked down much of the city of Boston over one – admittedly dangerous – teenager with a gun (and perhaps a few pipe bombs). Many have seen the videos of people being herded out of their homes that – truth be told – is reminiscent of what was seen as Germany descended into chaos in the 1930s. If you missed the video evidence, it is here:

or

These are just two examples. The truth is that if the blue state Boston populace had been more fully armed (and come to think of it, an AR-15 just might have been the perfect weapon for family defense, had the bombers attempted to perhaps take a family hostage), or if the Boston population had had the same courage as their forebears 200 years ago, the two bombers would not have made it very far at all. And as a matter of fact, ultimately, the fugitive was discovered by a citizen, in any event!

I am not here disparaging the police or military one iota. My nephew is a Marine. I believe in a strong Constitutionally-based national defense. It just so happens that my immediate neighbor is a former Marine and recently retired State Trooper who is a staunch Constitutionalist, and one of the most honorable, upright, common-sensical people I have ever met (as well as a very good friend), and also an exemplar of all that is good and right with the military and police. Rather, my concern is the political culture above them that is forcing many of these individuals to violate what is still the law of the land, as well as violate their consciences. I am not advocating violation of any law or statute – in fact, as you will see below, I am advocating a strict adherence to the law as it is written.

As our absentee father, relative ethics oriented, ends justify the means culture continues to devolve into a coarse parody of what the Founding Fathers envisaged, the Constitution – which is still the law of the land, and which our elected officials, military and police all take an oath to uphold – I think there are things we can do. Things that are creative, intelligent, and effective. Here is one suggestion for your consideration. Of course, consult your local laws to make sure everything you do is legal, non-fattening, and politically correct (e.g., you would not want to attempt the below in NYC, especially while holding an illegal 16 oz. Big Gulp in your hand!)

First, when another Boston situation “goes down”, I am going to make SURE I have deputized neighbors to be filming (as in the first video noted above), or have someone in the house with a cell camera that automatically uploads as it films. This is key, otherwise this process won’t work.

If the military or police come to my door, I will raise my hands high in the air, proving I am not a threat (this is for your safety, as well as the officer’s who also may have a family at home waiting for him), while at the same time informing them that I do not consent to a search, citing my 4th Amendment rights. I will not be confrontational or in-your-face with my attitude, but calmly ask for their name, badge number, and to speak with their leader. I will also let them know that any act of unprovoked violence on their part may possibly constitute a crime – or if the military, a war crime, a la My Lai. I do indeed have a very deep respect for law enforcement – however, the key is that law enforcement must remain within the confines of duly legislated laws, as determined by the democratic process – and of which the 4th Amendment is still a part. Otherwise, they are no better than, say, the badged thugs who harassed the civil rights marchers in the South half a century ago. 

I will then – enunciating my words so people videotaping this can lip read, if necessary – turn my back to them, while continuing keeping my arms raised. And – assuming I have the guts, which I pray I will, I would then tell them to “shoot me in the back” if they wish, but I do not consent to a search, based on the 4th Amendment. I will also let them know they are in violation of their oath to uphold the Constitution, and by shooting me in the back, they, themselves, may well be found guilty of murder, and jailed.

I may volunteer to let one of them in, just to out of courtesy, if I am so inclined. That is if they are concerned some “bad guy” may truly be in there, but it will be MY choice. I will let them know I am not trying to be recalcitrant at all, but rather concerned about the erosion of our freedoms, which in fact these terrorist acts are attempting to take from us as one of their primary objectives. 

The ACLU – which is a bad organization 95% of the time – does have a smart phone app that uploads video as it is being filmed, but there are other apps out there that do the same thing.

The iPhone software can be found here and for Android operating systems, go here.  

As for using the ACLU app, why not use evil against evil? About time they did one thing of value for the country. I would let the police know this real time video is being conducted, so they are on record. Or to quote the leftists, who have done so much damage to this country, they need to know, “The whole world is watching.” Doing the above would ensure authorities can’t mysteriously “lose” (see “Jon Corzine and $1.6 billion dollars” if you need further clarification for the word “lose”!) the camera, or it is taken from you. In sum, I am being non-violent, co-operative (hey, I truly want the bad guy caught too!), but also protecting my rights and the Constitution.   

 

Look, I am a dual US/Canadian citizen, so I am only half “free and brave” – where are the rest of those who are “full bloods,” who speak about the “land of the free and home of the brave?” But my goal is not even mildly precipitous. Rather, the above allows us to address a looming darkness in the land, yet be in full compliance with the law. Or, as we were advised 2,000 years ago, we need to be wise as a serpent, yet gentle as doves.  Here is a way to do exactly that. Think of doing this as “Saul Alinsky anti-matter” or Kryptonite to the left. As the late Christian rock artist Larry Norman once said, “Why should the Devil have all the good music?” Similarly, why should evil get to use all the creative ideas? Here’s one that does just that. And you can amend, mix and match, alter, modify, or whatever else you want, to my suggestions. Just get active, get creative, and communicate with others.

Is Your Money Safe?

Would your elected officials ever steal from you? Does the United States government have your best interests in mind? Is it possible that, like in many others areas, the U.S. will follow the lead of European Nations and go after your money? I would like to believe that the money I have set aside in the bank for my future would only be touched by me. It seems like that might not be the case however. At least not if our government keeps up the trend of following the trail blazed by their counterparts in Europe. Stealing from the citizens of America could be the government’s perfect solution to the debt crisis, avoiding financial collapse, the sequester, and nearly 1000 other fiduciary nightmares the United States is currently dealing with.

Jay, the political news editor at BeforeItsNews.com let me in on the following news out of Europe that is frightening. Here is an excerpt of the story:

For those who don’t believe the government is prepared to take extreme measures that may include the seizing of retirement accounts, cash savings or even gold, look no further than Cyprus, the latest recipient of bank bailouts.

As of right now, citizens of Cyprus are scrambling to withdraw funds from their bank accounts after the EU, with agreement from the Cypriot government, announced they will decimate funds held in personal bank accounts to the tune of up to 10% of existing deposits.

To read this article in its entirety, click here.

Guest Post: Selfishness and Preparedness

A big thank you to J. Vanne for writing this post.

Selfishness and Preparedness

by J. Vanne

Picture Credit: mentalhelp.net

Recently, a small firestorm was ignited by Valerie Lucus-McEwen, a government Emergency Management employee,  who had the temerity to accuse preparedness types of “selfishness.” While your immediate reaction may be – as mine certainly was – “Are people really and truly this thoughtless?” – this question does deserve a proper answer, particularly as those who are easily influenced by the leftist media, or who believe the state really and actually is the omniscient, omnipotent savior of  our personal and corporate lives, are actually asking this question. So, let’s examine the issue:

First, many preparedness types have, as part of their goal, the intent of helping neighbors and family who were unable – or unwilling – to prepare. In my own case, part of what I have in mind is assisting a large group of mentally retarded and Down’s syndrome children that my church has taken under its wing. (A group the state would do no more than “warehouse” if it were under their direction!). Not all preppers feel this way, but I would bet my bottom can of stored tuna fish there is an exceedingly large percentage of preparedness types who feel similarly.

One significant point of observation – that has significant ramifications relative to preparedness – is that, in my experience, the non-prepper type is generally of a socialist orientation. Of course, as most of you know, this approach was tried – and found wanting – all the way back in the Pilgrim era. Many of you are aware that when the Pilgrims first arrived, they worked out of a communal system. The result was starvation and death. As this approach did not work, they then “privatized” their system – and of course flourished. You can easily research this history yourself, but if one has any experience with human nature, it is immediately apparent why this didn’t – and has never in history – worked. The issue is that human nature is imperfect and selfish, just as Adam Smith wrote about in the Wealth of Nations. A simple recognition of this basic aspect of human nature – and finding a way to work with this reality, rather than against it, provides the most good for the largest number of people – exactly as Smith wrote, and exactly as history has shown for anyone who has eyes to see. To do otherwise impoverishes people, and in times of crisis, will lead to otherwise avoidable deaths. Working with this reality of human nature, rather than against it, has brought the greatest good for people overall in both good periods of history, as well as difficult. And for those of you with Judeo-Christian worldviews, this issue is why Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn called Communism “a Christian heresy” – viz., the Communist assumptions about human nature were completely off-base. Long story short, the question is: Is man perfectible (particularly with the best and brightest, such as Hilary, George Soros, Al Gore and Obama telling – nay, forcing – us what to do!), or are all men fallible, and the dictum of Lord Acton correct that absolute power corrupts absolutely correct. There is an unbridgeable divide between these two assumptions, and this divide makes itself manifest in the Hamlet-like “to prep or not to prep” debate.

The Fleet Street Letter put this matter perspicaciously a number of years ago, and is worth quoting at length:

There are two major traditions in Western political thought. The first is Aristotelian, logical, rational, centrist, mechanistic. You concentrate power and truth in the centre and apply it outward, shaping the world according to plan. This was the guiding principle of the Roman Empire. It evolved into the Holy Roman Empire and the Church of Rome. Except for Switzerland, it has dominated politics on the continent ever since. Most recently, it has morphed into the European Union. The principle is simple – smart people can figure out how to run things, and should be allowed to do so. This was the idea behind Hillary Clinton’s health care task force (and now ObamaCare), as well as Japan, Inc. and even Adolph Hitler’s National Socialist Germany. It has animated nearly every politician (each one  of whom, as Garrison Keilor notes about Lake Woebegone children, are above average) in this century. But there is another tradition that is much less well understood. It is the tradition of the Roman Republic… of English common law… of Adam Smith and Emmanuel Kant… of Austrian School economists such as Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek and of pre-Rooseveltian American. It is organic, rather than mechanistic – the tradition of tradition, based on the recognition that people, no matter how smart, cannot replace thousands of years of accumulated experience. Experience is embodied in the evolved systems of values, customs, rules and traditions that people use to order and give meaning to their lives. A free market and a free society allow people to express these preferences, as well as allowing the process of social and civil evolution to continue. This tradition, in other words, is neither liberal nor conservative in the modern sense, but anti-political. Indeed, it is often seen as “anti-intellectual” because it denies the authority of intellectuals to tell the rest of us what to do (through the political process).

Perhaps you, like I do, remember the “best and the brightest” who led the Vietnam war? How did that one work out? Or, if that news is too stale, perhaps you care to visit present day Detroit – which was the first city to adopt the socialist “Model Cities Program” in under Mayor Coleman Young a number of decades ago. Similarly, Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” was a quasi- socialist endeavour, which was intended to end poverty. You can judge for yourself what all those $9 trillion dollars spent on this “war” resulted in (hint: we now have just under 48 million on food stamps, up from 32 million when Obama took office, and with more poverty than ever).

The basic misunderstanding is, as Frederic Bastiat wrote in The Law,

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

There is yet another misunderstanding to clear up for those of Christian persuasion, as exemplified in the Book of Acts, 2:24, in the New Testament, which states about the early believers “And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common.”  Dr. Jay Richards addresses this superbly in his book Money, Greed andf God: Why Capitalism is the Solution and Not the Problem by simply noting that the early Christians held things in common privately, voluntarily and without compulsion. This is light years away from the state forcing sharing, and under compulsion.

And one more important observation, that is applicable to the prepping community: When I donate my own money at present, I watch like a hawk where it is going, and what it is doing. When my money goes for taxes to “help” others –  for the few dollars that actually make it past the money sucking gauntlet of bureaucrats –  how much actually reaches its destination? Some research shows as little as 10% or so. As the saying goes, it is much better to teach someone to fish, rather than just gives them a fish for a day. And I can do a thousand times more, with a million times more love, for 1% of the money, that the government could ever dream of doing, if I were left with my own money to donate as I wish. Similarly, preparedness is most optimally left to the individual, not the state. I am clearly not saying there is no place at all for the state to assist. However, it should be ancillary and very secondary in function. To do otherwise is to set expectations that can only be dashed – exactly as was seen during hurricanes Katrina or Sandy.

So, how does this relate to preparedness with potential future catastrophic disasters?  In a collapse – whether it be Argentinian/Greek/Zimbabwe style, or EMP, or a global war, compassion must be personal and voluntary. Not only is it more effective, it is more ethical. And it is more ethical because it is more caring, more direct, and more efficient  In a collapse, there should be a voluntary exchange, and for those that are not prepared, there should be some type of assistance rendered by the one who has not prepared (it could be cooking, gardening; perhaps doing guard duty or carpentry). Where this is not possible, simple humanity and compassion should – and undoubtedly will be – the hallmark of many preppers.

In a serious collapse, there may well be a need to choose whom one would help, or not, but that is a decision that will be very personal. For myself – in contrast to the government representatives who so condescendingly accuse preppers such myself of being self-centred, I will indeed (as noted above) look to help the weak and helpless. You may object by saying  “A lot of good that will do – we should, as per people like Dr. Peter Singer, just let the weak die.” To which I reply “A society that only values those of utility is not a society worth keeping – and in fact, is precisely the type of society – with its abortions, euthanasia, etc. – that got us into this mess in the first place.”

Another point: I would be remiss not to mention in the context of this article is the very self-apparent fact that for every person who is prepared, that is one less mouth to feed in a real crisis. This needn’t be addressed further, as it is patently obvious, but is yet another reality that the debunkers always seem, somehow, to neglect to address, though it is staring them right in the face.  The regular silence by these debunkers is a stark testimony to what is either a lack of critical thinking, or a purposeful lack of honesty is examining the relative merits of preparedness.

God – or for the non-believer, nature herself – has written self-preservation into our very DNA.  Certainly, from a Judeo Christian perspective, each individual person has the right to self-preservation. The Bible is replete with laws allowing for self-defense in the Old Testament, and even in the New Testament – while unequivocally admonishing believers to be irenic and forgiving, also quotes Christ telling the disciples, for example in Luke 22:36, in preparation for when He is gone, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” There are historically several approaches to defense in the Bible – complete pacifism, the use of “police” force, and just war, but that is beyond the scope of this paper. Suffice to say, self-defense is well within the historical understanding of options for Christians in a violent world, although admittedly this can be a difficult issue to navigate, and there is a range of conclusions which sensible people can come to within the pale of faith. Similarly, I extend this self-defense conception into that of realm of preparedness. I think the extension is fair and reasonable, about which reasonable people can disagree in some areas.

Also, relative to preparedness and faith, clearly Proverbs 27:12 explicitly states  – and which passage many preparedness types are familiar with – A prudent person foresees danger and takes precautions.  The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.”  In a world where well-regarded individuals like Dr. Lawrence Kotlikoff of Boston University state the total amount of unfunded liabilities – federal, state, municipal and corporate – are now a staggering $222 trillion, where the amount of derivatives (which Warren Buffet famously once called “financial weapons of mass destruction”) world-wide makes that amount look like a molehill, in a nation where people like Jon Corzine can “lose” $1.6 billion and simply walk away without a day in jail, where lives are lost during Fast and Furious and people just shrug their shoulders, or a in nation about which Billy Graham’s wife Ruth once said “If God doesn’t’ judge America, He’ll have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah,” is preparedness unwise?  Leftists may object, and that is their prerogative. However, if they wish not to prepare, then perhaps they ought to take to their own hearts and written commentary the one thing they forcefully invoke for everyone else in every other situation – tolerance. What business of theirs is it?

With all due respect to them, why is it our non-prepper friends, as exemplified by the written commentary of Ms. Lucus-McEwen noted above, why cannot they practice what they presumably preach about tolerance? Why must people like this actively vilify those with whom they disagree? (But of course, the answer is obvious – just as in the days of Imperial Rome, everyone but everyone must bow to the all-encompassing supremacy of the state. To do otherwise means crucifixion – 2,000 years ago, this was in the arena; today, it is the high tech lynching of a Clarence Thomas, the fashion execution of a Sarah Palin, or the just the “mere” thuggery against those of us who beg to disagree with big government by modern day Kristalnacht Alinsky ruffians.

The whole area of faith and preparedness admittedly needs much further and deeper exegesis – but hopefully this scratches the surface of the subject, and opens up additional conversation.

But even for the non-believer, one’s body is wired for self-preservation. And if nature is all that exists, logically one has no basis to “backtalk against one’s DNA,” which has written self-preservation into the body. From either a biblical or non-biblical perspective, self-preservation is an intrinsic “good.”  Why should preppers then be castigated?

One final – and extremely telling – point about “selfish preppers.” The woman who wrote this disparagingly of preppers was a government worker. This means she makes a good living off of private sector people such as myself. As a matter of fact, I cannot currently make adequate preparations for my family and I because I have to provide a “princessly” salary and retirement package for her (the average government worker may make a third more in salary than a private sector worker, and retires much, much earlier). But here is the kicker: If there is a disaster – it will mostly likely brought about by yet another miscalculation by the self-proclaimed “best and brightest,” (think Vietnam, the internet bubble, Long Term Capital Management, Jon Corzine, the housing bust, etc.). Do you know where these “important” people will go? To continuity of government shelters! In other words, if there is a miscalculation, and a nuclear war starts, or an EMP or biological attack starts, they are all set to retreat to specially built giant, lavishly equipped caverns – while you and I fend for ourselves, due to  a mess of their creation!  Any word from our “preppers are selfish” commentariat on that? Why not?. If nothing else in this article sinks home to you, this should make crystal clear the hypocrisy behind the prepper criticism. The truth is, just as we see with today’s cronyism in high places, as George Orwell so aptly noted, “In the socialist workers’ paradise, we’ll all be equal… only some of us (usually them!) will be ‘more equal’ than the others.” Just ask Nancy Pelosi why her Congress exempted themselves, their cronies and their districts from ObamaCare if you don’t believe that.

In sum, I prepare the same reason my all my forebears did each fall: I don’t know what the winter (of this this case, the future) will bring. While for believers, God has promised to be with us and sustain us, as the old saying goes, we can’t ask God to direct our steps if we are unwilling to move our feet.  I trust, and my feet move.

If you would like to write a guest post for The Prepared Ninja,

email: tom@thepreparedninja.com

Will You Fight? (Follow Up)

I recently made the post, ‘Will You Fight?’ that was written by Dean Garrison about the attempt to outlaw firearms in America and whether we have a responsibility to fight if the government comes to take our guns away. The website D.C. Clothesline has Mr. Garrison’s follow up response to his original writing. It is posted below. As he states, please spread the message and let our fellow Patriots know that they are not alone!

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” -Patrick Henry

About 45 days ago I wrote an article entitled “If They Come for Your Guns Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?” At the time this article, from an obscure blogger, changed my world. Within days I had become part of something much bigger than I could have ever imagined. The post was featured on literally hundreds of websites, and to date has received millions of readers.

How did it happen? Well on January 3rd, people were still not saying what needed to be said and I suppose I was one of the first to say it. It is not about deer hunting and we are all covered by a second amendment which is about our rights to protect ourselves from tyranny. So I said it. If they come for your guns it is not only your right but your responsibility to fight. Yes, that includes firing upon them. It’s not about hunting deer. The second amendment is about hunting tyrants.

Since pushing the “publish” button, I have had literally hundreds of conversations with people who believe that tyranny is an unchecked virus within our own federal government. I get so many messages every day that I can literally not respond to all of them. So, today I want to talk about where we go from here.

It is a growing conception that we can not wait. While we sit and wait, our government continues an all out assault on our rights as free men and women of the United States of America. Many people believe that there is no peaceful alternative. Many people believe that we must organize and fight. Today I can offer no concrete set of actions but I do want to lay out some thoughts that I think need to be discussed.

First I need to tell you that I sincerely believe that the government is, in a twisted way, hoping that a small group of Patriots will organize and start a half-cocked rebellion. I think they realize that this can happen and also realize that it can strengthen their case for gun control. I would not put it past them to stage such an event.

I believe that a small, poorly planned rebellion will do us more harm than good. It will be easily suppressed and it will give the powers that be even more ammunition for a declaration of martial law. It is my belief that martial law, or a “police state,” is the end goal of this administration. You don’t have to look hard to see that they are preparing for it. As recently as two weeks ago the Reverend Jesse Jackson was even asking for it in his home town of Chicago.

We must understand that there are literally millions of people who have concluded that letters, petitions, peaceful demonstrations and elections are not working. They are in agreement that revolution is the only way to potentially fix this problem. But if a small group of 50 or even 500 people start the revolt, it is likely to go nowhere. We must develop a united front and we must go through proper channels. We can not skirt the law to try to uphold it.

The problem I see, once again, is the same problem that I witnessed 45 days ago. Everyone is waiting for someone to take the lead. So today I am going to offer to do that. With that said, I want to tell you that I am nothing more than a blogger. I don’t have any grand visions of being elected to any office. I am not a skilled military strategist. I am not an advanced “prepper” or survival expert. I am nothing special. I suppose the only thing truly special about me is that I am not afraid to speak my mind. I still understand that this is my God-given right as an American citizen.

I know full well that the first amendment in this country is currently an illusion. I know that writing this could get me arrested or killed. If you were to ask me if I was afraid I would simply answer that yes I am afraid, but I am more afraid of what will happen to our country if people do not begin to speak up.

I understand and follow the methods our current administration and lawmakers are using to take away our most basic rights. They can detain me indefinitely. If they choose to see me as an enemy of the state they can do worse. There will be no due process. It will not matter how many people support me. I can be made to disappear and become a non-factor. So why am I speaking about this?

Once again, it’s because someone has to. Until someone starts to speak of these things we have zero chance to change anything. We can’t fight the destruction of America with splintered cells of people who are afraid to raise their voices. We must be United. This is not negotiable.

I will not endorse an open attack (violent or non-violent) upon the federal government unless and until I feel like we have given them one last chance to represent us.

The first thing that “We the People” must do is set forth a list of our demands. This is our country. We need to pinpoint every change that we wish to see made and we must deliver these to the lawmakers. I am offering today to be that messenger. That is one thing that I can do, but I can not do it alone. I will need massive response. The only way that will happen is if this post goes viral like the post from 45 days ago.  I can not guarantee that will happen, but I can guarantee it will happen if millions of people are truly in support of this revolution. Time will tell.

If we get little response then I will assume that my theories are wrong. The people will decide. I’ve been wrong before. It would not be the first time.

Here is what I need. I need people to list executive orders and laws that are in violation of our constitutional rights (list everything in the comments below). We will be demanding that these laws and executive orders be repealed.

I need open discussion of what we need to do with the people currently in office. Do we call for new elections? Can we literally remove them all? We are talking about more than Obama here. We have to understand that many people have been compliant (Republicans and Democrats) with the policies and actions that we too easily credit to Obama. This is not a problem isolated to one person. My thought is that they should keep their jobs if they start to work within the framework of the constitution. But if they do not then we will have to forcibly remove them.

Make no mistake the constitution is the law of this land, not public opinion.

We need to discuss policies (foreign and domestic) and cabinet appointments as well. We need to literally make a list of everything that needs to change. We can’t expect everything to change immediately but we must address the issues that are important to freedom. We must list things that are constitutionally based. In other words, I don’t like everything about my government but my major concerns are the things that blatantly violate the constitution. I have to focus on these things and not merely on my opinions. Unless we can constitutionally support our arguments we have no credibility.

What I would like to do is first gather volumes of ideas and then start putting them into a format that we can use. We can’t just start shooting politicians. That will get us nowhere but dead or in jail. 

Let’s get our ideas out in the open. We will then gather again to vote on the constitutional relevancy of certain opinions before we submit them to the White House and both branches of our legislature. If they have our “constitutionally based” demands in print and choose not to respond in a manner that we feel conducive to change, then we will move forward to our only remaining option. It will be time bear arms against our government.

I feel like we have no grounds to call for the revolt until we first present our conditions to our elected officials.

I am simply offering to be the messenger but ultimately the success or failure depends on you. If this post falls dead in the water with 5 or even 50 comments then we are going nowhere.

This is the time for people of America to speak up if they really want to make changes in this government. Once we have all the terms and conditions ironed out we will formally petition our government. If that goes no where then we will look toward full use of our second amendment rights.

For now you must reject any new attempts to try to infringe on your second amendment rights and if you want to be involved in this “Think Tank” you must do three things for me:

  1. By all means I need to your ideas and comments below. Keep them constitutionally based. If you have no ideas or comments, at least let us know that you support us.
  2. I need you to join us on Facebook. Why is this important? Well did you notice that this is the first post on a brand new site? We have already been censored once and I need people to gather where we can inform them of developments.
  3. If you believe in this cause then you need to help us spread the word. Share it on your social networks or however you possibly can.

I will be watching the development of this post in regards to traffic and comments. I’m all in. I have made the offer. But again, if this ends up being a group of 5 or 50 people trying to push a revolution, we have nothing. The only way this works is if people unite right here and now. On an average blog post, it takes about 150-200 readers to generate 1 comment. If people can’t open their mouths this time then they will simply get what they deserve. I am putting myself out on a limb here. I will not fight for people who will not fight for themselves.

If you agree that this is the only way then you have to come out of hiding and get really loud now. You are allowed to disagree as well. This is America and I support your right to free speech. We have to know where we stand before we can make a decision to move forward.

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” -Noah Webster

I put myself out on a limb once before and people responded. Make no mistake, this is a frightening place to be. I have three beautiful girls and twins on the way. I am afraid for my safety and theirs, but my biggest fear is that they will have to live with the results of an American public resolved to cowardice. America must wake up. Apathetic no more! We must do something.

MOLON LABE!

There is a ton of great content on D.C. Clothesline so make sure to check them out and subscribe to get updates on new content via email.

Has America Been Invaded?

The last few years have brought many questions to the minds of Americans as to where the country is and where we are headed. Glenn Beck and some of the folks over at TheBlaze are taking inside look at “The Project” and how the Muslim Brotherhood may be trying to steer our country away from our ideals. How are they doing this? Good old-fashioned infiltration of the United States government. Is this possible? According to U.S. Army Lieutenant General (Ret.) William Jerry Boykin, it has already happened. The two-part video series is very interesting and well worth the time to watch.

From Glenn Beck and TheBlaze:

“In 2001, an inconspicuous manifesto now known as “The Project” was recovered during a raid in Switzerland: A manifesto that turned out to be a Muslim roadmap for infiltrating and defeating the West. Today, files containing evidence from the largest terror financing trial in U.S. history, which include details about “The Project”, are being withheld by the Department of Justice.

In an explosive two-part mini-series, TheBlaze documentary unit investigates how the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the American government and exposes how our nation’s safety is in jeopardy as a result of this dangerous government cover up.”

‘THE PROJECT’ – PART I

‘THE PROJECT’ – PART II

 While the videos are great, make sure to check out these original documents and their English interpretations at the links below:

1. The Muslim Brotherhood “Project”

2. Muslim Brotherhood Memo For Infiltration Of The United States

Who Benefits From Government Actions?

Today is another inspiration from Patrick Heller of Liberty Coin Service as he addresses the issue of who truly benefits from the actions of federal government of the United States. I cannot hope to say it as good as he does so I will let him do the talking. Here is the link to the audio:

Who Are The Real Beneficiaries Of Government Actions?

Who do you think the true beneficiaries of the decisions made by United States government are? Let your opinion be known in the comments section!

Wood U Believe Ah Union Teacher Teached Me?

Nothing teaches a child anything better than teaching them nothing at all, right? That seems to be the latest development out of The Windy City. I just want to make sure that I have a somewhat clear idea of what is going on in Chicago today…based on concerns that many teachers are not getting “fair” treatment, they have gone on strike. This has left over 400,000 students in Chicago to do whatever they feel like while their teachers wander the streets wearing red shirts, holding signs and chanting like the largest group of cheerleaders ever assembled. Someone better call the Guinness Book of World Records!

There is very little to worry about though, the city did activate their school contingency operations plan which opened 144 schools from 8:30 am to 12:30 pm and provided a free breakfast and lunch to the kids that were present at these schools. The contingency plan only provided a place for the students to come and eat and play games and recreate though as no instruction or teaching was allowed as a result of the ongoing strike. In a city that suffers so many violent shootings even though they have some of the strictest gun laws in the entire country, the school districts are now telling those on the fence of dropping out to follow the gang life or a lifestyle of crime that they will make the decision for them by closing the schools.

There were earlier attempts to come to a resolution but the teachers were not willing to agree to the measly 16% pay increase over the next four years. There are people who would commit unspeakable crimes in the current economy to keep their current job, even if it meant taking a pay cut! For being qualified AKA “smart enough” to be teachers, you would think that individuals would realize that the fact that they have jobs is a great thing. I would also be willing to bet that many of them have reached a point in their careers where they are tenured, which in easy to understand terms means that as long as they do not commit too many murders in the commission of a felony, you cannot lose your job.

It makes me all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that some of our nation’s educators, those responsible for teaching our youth, are setting the example that when you don’t think something is fair that you just walk off the job and protest until you get your way. That is exactly what today’s youth need to be learning! This is not just a Chicago problem either. My mother was a teacher in the public school systems across the country for over four decades and always complained that no matter where she went she was forced to join the union and pay union dues. She did not have any option. It was a requirement.

I find it so sad that we have let unions creep in and take over the operations of our government. Will we let it get to the point where the fire department will have the option to extinguish the fire that is engulfing your home based on what their future pay and benefit increases may or may not be? Or perhaps the military will be able to choose which states will be defended in the event of a foreign invasion based on greatest federal tax revenues from the individual states? My point is that union activity should not dictate government activity and operations. The government is already too big as it stands, the last thing that is needed is additional help from unions.

The best resolution that I have heard so far is to borrow a page out of the Ronald Reagan playbook and give every teacher in Chicago 48 hours to report back to work or forfeit their job. It is not unreasonable to expect them to teach kids and it is not unreasonable for them to expect anything other than getting fired if they do not do their job! You can’t tell me there are not hundreds of people out there that are qualified to teach that wouldn’t be willing to step up and take those jobs.

At the end of the day it really comes down to the fact that teachers in Chicago don’t want to be held accountable for what they do on their evaluations. Plan and simple. End of story. Everything else is a smokescreen. All the other reasons that have been given are an excuse. Except maybe getting more pay and benefits for less time at work. That is why over 400,000 students in Chicago, Illinois are on fall vacation for the foreseeable future. We will see how many decide to actually go back to school once the union gets things ironed out to make it “fair” for the teachers. I am sure that some students will decide that the $1,000 a day that they now make selling methamphetamine is better than sitting in a classroom with their pissed off teachers.

Rest easy Chicago. With no school tomorrow, there will be plenty of kids out bustin’ caps late into the night!